Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensalcola, Fla., ruled that the law will remain effect until all appeals are concluded, a process that could take two years. However, Judge Vinson determined that the entire law should fall if appellate courts agree with his opinion that the insurance requirement if invalid.

That is, the judge rejected the severability argument.

The judge’s ruling came in the most prominent of the more than 20 legal challenges mounted against some aspect of the sweeping health law...

The plaintiffs include governors and attorneys general from 26 states....

Imagine for a moment that it is constitutional for the federal govenrment to force you to buy health insurance.

Why can't they force you to buy life insurance? After all, if you die, you can't pay your bills. This hurts society.

Why can't they force you to buy dental insurance? After all, tooth decay can kill.

And since you're going to die, why can't they force you to buy burial insurance? Everyone is going to die, after all, and everyone who dies without burial insurance is getting a free ride on the "system."

And really, if they can force you to buy insurance products, why can't they force you to buy other types of products? Diet Coke instead of the unhealthy regular coke?

The proposition that the govenrment has the power to force you to buy things is ridiculous on its face in an ostensibly free society.

I believe lack of severability was by design. They couldn't pass it without the mandate as a guaranteed funding source and a way to avoid free riders. CBO score would've been worse, and the narrow margin they had to pass it just wouldn't have been there.

Also there were those who thought -- perhaps correctly, but this judge didn't agree -- that lack of severability provided a shield for the mandate: "You can't strike this down without striking down the whole thing, and you wouldn't want to do that."

I just remember a ruling not too long ago that the judge being possibly gay made the ruling unjust.

No, the argument was that a gay judge has a conflict of interest in ruling on gay marriage; while I mocked that argument whenever it was made, I never LIED about it. But then I'm not a troll, like garage mahal.

What concerns me is that the gummint argued that Obamacare is justified by the fact that "all Americans are consumers of medical insurance." That is patently untrue for the tens of thousands of expatriate Amerikans who not only don't participate in Amerikan healthcare but also don't get the Medicare benefits they have paid for for over 45 years.

He never has anything substantive to say, just drops steaming piles of tu quoque and snark. He is uninterested in trying to persuade anyone of anything, he's just here to fling feces at Team Red on behalf of Team Blue.

If he actual cared about progressives and their causes, he would argue substantively on their behalf without first insulting the people he wished to persuade.

I haven't read it yet, but a holding the says the law is beyond Congress' enumerated powers is not a holding that the law "violates people's rights." It's a structural argument the plaintiff-States were making, not an individual rights argument.

More than just saying that a severability clause was overlooked in the Act, Judge Vinson said the entire thing is necessarily inseverable:

The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional.

[O]n the unique facts of this particular case, the record seems to strongly indicate that Congress would not have passed the Act in its present form if it had not included the individual mandate. This is because the individual mandate was indisputably essential to what Congress was ultimately seeking to accomplish. It was, in fact, the keystone or lynchpin of the entire health reform effort…

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

The requirements of the Federal government in various facets of individual life say one should behave in such a manner or be penalized.

In the SOTU Obama touted the Bruce Randolph school in Denver. Look closely at how the school accomplished what they did. Local TV station ran a story on the Principal, in closing the reporter stated that the principal had receiver exemptions from district and union rules. Look what happens when the government gets out of the lives of individuals, they achieve.

Big government struggles to control lives but is an abject failure in being a good nanny.

Typically when part of a law is found unconstitutional, only those provisions that cannot be decoupled from the offending portion are struck down. The judge(s) will rule on which portions violate the constitution and which will remain intact. So a severability clause is unnecessary. The Roberts court recently ruled parts of Sarbanes-Oxley unconstitutional but only struck down the offending provisions--not the whole law.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, all the much-lauded goodies from the ACA are impossible to achieve without healthy people paying into the system. Unless they want to turn the "penalty" into a tax, and piss off the 5 people who truly believed their taxes weren't being raised, the ACA simply cannot finance itself.

"As long as we pursue an insurance model for health care in US we have the conflicting issues of: coercion/healthy paying for the sick vs uninsured due to cost/heavy financial burdens due to illness."

No, our problem is the current system (and ObamaCare is doubling down on the current system) is not an INSURANCE model. An insurance model would cover so called catastrophic costs only, similar to your house burning down or totaling your car.

Surely there is nothing wrong with the violent overthrow of a dictatorship? After all, Mubarak could have been killing his subjects at any time, for any reason--that he's only doing it now when he's in danger of losing is because he's pragmatic, not because he's moral or legitimate. I don't see anything wrong with Florida approving of what Egyptians are trying to do.

@Florida:

Surely you can see the difference between the violent overthrow of a dictatorship and the violent overthrow of a constitutional democracy that allows peaceful resolution? As much as you don't like Obamacare, you had every opportunity to convince your fellow citizens and representatives not to adopt it; and even now it loks like many of them are changing their minds. Nobody's gone to jail or been shot for opposing Obamacare; you don't have the right to get your way, only to persuade others to let you have it.

If you can't see the distinction, then you deserve Seven Macho's critcisms.

Scott -- I don't know the first thing about you. But if you urged violent revolution where scores of people die and are injured because you lost a legislative or constitutional debate, and if you overtly used the vocabulary of slavery and some sort of black vernacular when talking about Obama, and if you did all the other things Florida does, I would consider you either:

a) one of the stereotypical mouth-breathing conservatives who the left uses to scare reasonable people about conservatism and limited government, or

b) a Moby who is very good at imitating said mouth breather.

Either way, I'd say that you are hurting the cause you support, either genuinely or falsely.

OK, I'll get in on the blog photo change too...I've chosen James Starks 'cuz I watched him play at the University of Buffalo (season tix holder). He was instrumental when they won the MAC by beating an undefeated Ball State team.

Packers by 3.

As far as this ruling goes, I am pleased...nobody should be told that they have to buy any such insurance, especially a redistributive 'scheme' disguised as a health plan. The way this thing went down and passed is garbage. How the left can talk this thing up with a straight face is truly frightening. These people are to be pitied. Control freaks and thieves one and all.

I agree with what you said to Scott M, I just thought Egypt is avery bad example. Violence is perfectly acceptable to overthrow tyranny; of course it has to be ACTUAL TYRANNY and not an obligation to buy health insurance.

If my right to freedom of assmebly is denied because the city concil illegally refuses me the proper permits I do not have a moral right to kill people over it. I can sue, or move, or persuade everyone else to vote for a new city council.

It's a well written case. The judge rejected the idea that the health care market is unique in that the government could regulate an inactivity. (The judge ruled that not purcahsing health insurance was an "inactivity"...) The judge reasoned that there are numerous markets which all people eventually use. This fact does not mean the government can force them to use it by purchasing a product.

I think the severabilty clause was taken out to "raise the stakes." The Democrats believed that the judges would be nervous about striking down the entire law that was "helping so many people" and that the people wanted. This is what happened to the New Deal type laws that was eventually approved by the court However, the problem is that this law is unpopular. The drafters of the law never anticipated that it would remain so unpopular.

Gabriel: I like your eloquent (as usual) distinction, but I take some exception to: "you don't have the right to get your way, only to persuade others to let you have it." Because if a big part of "your way" is the "right to be left alone"--otherwise know as liberty-- that was the central tenet of the Constitution, we shouldn't have to persuade anyone in this country to allow us to keep it. Unfortunately, with a Federal government vastly overreaching it's supposedly limited powers, that's exactly where we are today. Note that I am NOT calling for violent overthrow of the government, just a conscious effort to get back to Constitutionality whether through abiding by the text or changing the text through the authorized methods (not just grabbing power where it's popular).

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

"Gabriel -- I agree with you exactly. Thank you for helping me to and challenging me to make my position clear."

Please, you are an active Usuper Internet Operative. Spreading the common line that you are a "conservative", and you want to "protect" Consevatives' good name. All BS, just like the Usurper is like Reagan. Just like the "civility" nonsense. It's the Journolist spiel, and you're part of it. How do you like licking the Usurper's boots?

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time trying to get elected, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

...it's hard to get too excited about this because nothing matters in the federal courts until Anthony Kennedy flips his magic coin but tossing out the whole law is a big, big boost politically for advocates of repeal.

"Surely you can see the difference between the violent overthrow of a dictatorship and the violent overthrow of a constitutional democracy that allows peaceful resolution?"

Sure I do. Here, let me explain it to you: The peaceful resolution is the Supreme Court striking down this unconstitutional law.

That's why we have a Supreme Court, after all. To provide a check on Executive and Legislative branch power grabs.

A free people cannot be compelled by their government to buy products from third parties (especially when those third parties are funding re-election campaigns).

That's banana republic. If that's America ... then we need to reformulate America.

Look, I'm confident the Supreme Court will strike down this law and also confident that if they don't we'll see anarchy in the streets as people look to secure their freedoms just like the Egyptians are doing.

It's not hard to do. Watch and learn.

A government which can compel my children to buy things is making a slave of them and thus is a dictatorship. Will you stand idly by?

My children will not live under such tyranny my friend.

So the sooner the Supreme Court gets busy striking this law down the sooner we can get to figuring out another solution to this problem.

Hey, during the campaign Barack Obama was AGAINST the individual mandate. He was also for raising the capital gains tax on his friend Warren Buffet and Ted Turner and on his comrade-in-arms Michael Bloomberg.

I hereby propose we take their shit from them - through IRS force - and buy folks some health care with that unused and untapped wealth.

Original Mike (or "Mike Classic");An insurance model would cover so called catastrophic costs only, similar to your house burning down or totaling your car.

I get your point but you're talking about benefits, not whether its insurance. Yes, I use the oil change example all the time. But rememeber most car insurances cover those nuisance pebble cracks in the windshield, a relatively minor problem and cheap to fix. And that touches on a difficult part of insurance coverage:

If we belief that payment for "X" incentivizes the use of "X" then just as the repair of the little windshield crack that will eventually become a huge crack, many health insures cover certain "prevention measures" in the hope of mitigating future costs.

Back to your original point, no one gets auto insurance and then says, "great now I can go out and have that accident I've been putting off". The same can't be said for health insurance, particularly in a world of no pre-existing conditions.

"Mick -- I don't think anyone who is here regularly would ever question my bona fides when it comes to conservatism, libertarianism, or limited government.

It was especially hilarious the other day to watch another poster utterly destroy your weak and silly arguments about citizenship, particularly with regard to Supreme Court cases"

And of course you're wrong again. You are an Obama Internet Brigade sleeper, who has gotten the "Obama is Reagan" assignment. Keep licking those boots. The Usurper would be mad that you got utterly destroyed, and couldn't refute any argument I made. The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar.

Democrats have teamed up with insurance companies: Democrats supply the enslaved customers, and insurance companies agreed to supply the re-election campaign money.

It's win-win for both.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with health insurance or health care - except insofar as Democrats are going to ensure that nobody gets any actual health care for the insurance they're forced to buy because that wouldn't be profitable for the insurance companies. Thus ... death panels.

That's the problem.

They know what insurance is.

They know what coercion is.

They know what corruption is.

They know where the money is.

A corrupt government is an illegitimate government and we are under no requirement as Americans to allow such a government to continue to exist.

It is our right ... no, it is our duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for our future security.

Just like Thomas Jefferson told us to do. And Josiah Bartlett and John Hancock and Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin.

I do not believe that Obama is Reagan. I have never compared Obama to Reagan. Obama has been a disastrous president for the United States. Ronald Reagan was among the five greatest presidents the United States has been graced with.

But, Mick, just so you know: Obama is a natural-born citizen. And the legitimate president of the United States. Also, you are a loon.

do you accept the premise that a corrupt government is by definition an illegitimate one and that we as Americans are under no obligation to continue supporting a corrupt government?

No. Not at all. Corruption is endemic to government because humans are deeply, deeply flawed. Good leaders accept human psychological limitation and work with it. You can only limit and harness corruption.

If people really accepted your theory, we'd be having a revolution every day. And there'd be these camps...

By the way, I think the health insurance vs. health care distinction is an important one to point out. The issue is - it's very difficult to provide the latter for everyone without someone (consumers, employers, the government) providing the former, one way or another.

Florida -- Obama was duly elected by the people. The Congress that passed Obamacare was duly elected by the people. The Supreme Court has been duly chosen by duly elected Senates and Presidents. However much you may hate the law, you cannot say that it was somehow foisted illegally on you by a tyrant.

Get over yourself. If one person dies or gets a bruise because of some political uprising related to Obamacare, it would be a travesty.

The law is never final. We can always change it. We. The People.

You aren't serious, anyway, of course. You won't be taking to the barricades. But get over yourself. It's embarrassing. Also you are a Moby.

Insurance protects your assets. A portion of the population does not believe in insurance because they have no assets and / or would rather just get free stuff from the dole.

About 20 years ago, we went to see Jay Leno in A.C. casino. One of his jokes got big laughs from the audience when he said "I was surprised to see so many of you blackjack players buying insurance at the $5.00 table- afterall most of you don't even pay to insure your car!"

I don't know. Seems like there used to be a better class of bullshit from the commenters on this blog. I remember being reticent to comment here 'cause I might not measure up. Now I'm just reluctant to be associated in any way with some of these clowns. Clowns-- you know who you are.

A nation of laws within the bounds of a Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence.

A very temporary majority of corrupt men may not force their tyranny on the minority for all time by passing unconstitutional laws while they hold temporary power through the corrupt devices of intimidation, violence and bribery.

We are a nation of laws.

Not men.

And it's going to fucking stay that way. Even if we have to take to the streets to secure freedoms for our children.

My Supreme Court prediction: 8-1 to uphold, with Thomas the lone dissenter. There may be Bush v Gore-style fragmented submajorities in favor of the different rationales offered by the government (even some of the liberals may balk at the idea of the individual mandate being a tax, or at least of it being a tax of the sort that Congress is authorized to levy).

Anyone who's counting on Scalia's vote to strike down the foul thing should read his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich, which is directly on point here.

No, the argument was that a gay judge has a conflict of interest in ruling on gay marriage; while I mocked that argument whenever it was made,...

In a perfect world. Here we had a gay judge living with a partner in San Francisco. Given the dynamics in toto, I don't have that faith that the rule of law was rendered sans outside ultra vires influences.

No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment. In this economy, their homes probably won't even do that!!! Congratulations! How's the state of the Union working out for you?

"No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment."

Barack Obama is not the champion of such people.

He has built no hospitals.

He has hired no doctors.

He has not handed out the first aspirin.

He wants to force people to buy insurance ... not provide people with health care.

If Barack Obama wanted to help poor sick people he'd ask the Congress for $1 trillion dollars worth of cancer medicine.

Did you know that Barack Obama has, today, before the Congress, a 2011 request for foreign aid totalling over $4 billion for countries in which the leader is a dictator? That's just 10 countries. Dictators control them and Barack is sending them $4 billion of your tax money.

That $4 billion could buy a lot of cancer medicine. Instead, Barack Obama is spending your tax money to dictators.

((This question has come up a few places. I've also seen incorrect media reports that Judge Vinson's decision declaring all of ObamaCare unconstitutional "will have no instant effect on implementation." This is probably fueled in part because "senior White House advisors" are apparently saying that implementation will continue while the lawsuits play out.

That is incorrect, at least for the moment. The law is unconstitutional and that ruling is binding on the parties. Not just the 26 plaintiff states, mind you, as I've also seen erroneously reported. All parties to a lawsuit are bound, including and especially the defendants, that is, the U.S. departments attempting to implement ObamaCare.

That means that at this moment all parts of the law are unenforceable, including the guaranteed issue rule, the preparations for the exchanges, the minimum standards, the Medicaid expansion, the FSA adjustment, the 1099 debacle, and, of course, the individual mandate. The Obama Administration risks a contempt order if it attempts to continue to impose any of these ObamaCare requirements on the states. ))

That was from Malor over at Ace's. The law blogs are also in concurrence that the NYT was wrong.

No far better for you all to have a country in which the sick who also happen to be poor have to sell their homes to buy cancer treatment.

Is that your argument? That's it? No problemo. Craft a law that covers that relatively miniscule population. Not a law that all persons however situated to buy something whether they want it or not, and especially that sizeable group who does not.

Joubert -- The argument of most people on the left, when you get down to it, is that health care should be free or very cheap regardless of the social costs, the drastic diminishing in quality, and the loss of liberty necessary to make that happen.

I agree, and I get it. Truth is, mandatory universal socialized medicine has been a holy grail for the left going all the way back to Truman. Maybe even back to FDR, but back to Truman for sure. They could never get it though, mainly because the majority of Americans rejected it. Then, in 2008 all the stars were aligned politically: extreme liberal president and a super-majority in congress, no matter how temporal. In fact, maybe because it was so temporal. So they went for the gusto. Overreaching is what Obamacare is all about, and that will be its undoing.

I wonder how long it will take for the obama trial balloon to float the idea that "well obamacare can survive without the mandate" much like howard dean blabbed last summer as the popularity of it shrank. I think they have to lose the 11th circuit before they will cry uncle. It will never make it to the SCOTUS

What the hell has gotten into you people? Do you realize how stupid, how childish, and how futile you sound suggesting riots in the streets where people get killed or a fucking breakup of the Union over Obamacare?

Get fucking serious, you ass clowns. Moreover, stop with the pussy suggestions and come right out and say it.

Pogo: admit that you support a civil war -- a civil war! -- if the health care law of 2010 is not rescinded by the Supreme Court.

Florida: admit that you want hundreds of thousands of people to riot in the streets, and people to die, and property to be looted if the health care law of 2010 is not rescinded by the Supreme Court.

If you can't man up and say these things you allude to, just stop. For the love of God, man. Especially you, Pogo. I mean, really.

Florida;Democrats have teamed up with insurance companies: Democrats supply the enslaved customers, and insurance companies agreed to supply the re-election campaign money.

I think you have the political alliances wrong. Insurance companies have been ambivalent about this process from the get-go. they understood that "no pre-existing condition"s was going to be a push but they knew that open, hard political opposition would not sit well. Early on they agreed to ending that with the assumption that something (i.e. a mandate) would make that economically feasible.

All in all I believe they're relatively displeased with the outcome, a lot for access but nothing for cost control and quality.

If you were looking for a large early ally of Obamacare I would suggest Big Pharma. Their interests were generally protected. Besides they're much bigger companies (i.e bigger donors)

I don't advocate a civil war but at what point do the American people get to say "enough"?

It's clear that this was rammed down our throats, that we cannot afford it and that it will bankrupt our country. If judges, beholden to the Democratic party, side with Obama on this then it will mean that the slide is complete.

What the hell has gotten into you people? Do you realize how stupid, how childish, and how futile you sound suggesting riots in the streets where people get killed or a fucking breakup of the Union over Obamacare?

Part of the problem is that some people are looking at this issue as an argument over ObamaCare. Others are looking at it as a battle over whether to establish the precedent that the federal government can do essentially anything to us against our will and beyond its enumerated Constitutional powers in the guise of regulating "interstate commerce" and creating "necessary and proper" enabling legislation.

It's reminiscent of when some people defended Bill Clinton: "He lied about a few blowjobs. Big deal, everyone lies about sex!" Meanwhile others said: "He violated his oath of office, he lied while giving testimony under oath to a court, and he looked the American public in the eye and lied to us with a straight face. It is a big deal!"

Seven: My bad, Pogo. I saw end of the United States + John Brown in 1859 and I assumed = Civil War in 1860/61.

I agree with you, but find your defense somewhat confusing. Too often of late, you seem to be the guy standing with us on King Street in Boston, telling us not to riot because it will make the Colonials appear barbaric.

I'm just curious where you draw the line. At what point would you use violence to defend the Republic? Ever? If the Socialists take it over, are you expecting tanks in the streets? Because thats not how it would happen.

Fen -- The best professor I ever had was in law school, and he was -- I am told -- a leftist Straussian, and he had a case named after him that went all the way to the Supreme Court about just this issue: he advocated the right to revolution.

I agree with this great, great man about the right to revolution. However, it is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something to be bandying about like some policy choice. People will die in a revolution. Innocent people. Children.

As long as people are able to change laws they don't want, there's utterly no need for violent revolution. In this case, we as people who disagree with Obamacare have had and will have ample opportunity to change this law.

I do agree the law is unconstitutional. I would advise that you start thinking the way people like Randy Barnett think: let's try to make some simple structural changes that will provide opportunity to limit federal government growth.

Finally, Florida really is a Moby. He is advocating the exact violence over policy that the left charges that the Tea Party and the right advocates. Think about it.

"Oh, and Fen: Obama is a natural-born citizen. This is simply an indisputable fact. American pussy is American pussy.

So let's get past that. Let's not waste valuable political capital on it."

And of course you are an Obama bootlicker. A foreign dick is a foreign dick, that's what makes him ineligible, and gave him British citizenship at birth. How can a natural born Citizens citizenship be "governed" by Britain? Since when is a pic on a website proof of ANYTHING? Next time you apply for a passport just whip out your laptop and show them a pic of your BC.

" Mick -- There is a law that says that a person who the son of a foreign man and an American woman is born an American."

You are obviously an Obama Bootlicker internet operative, just sitting here at your lonely outpost doing the bidding of the Usurper. You mean like this from Minor v. Happersett, and repeated verbatum in Wong Kim Ark?

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

AND if a Congressional statute is needed to make him an American citizen, then he is certainly NOT a natural born Citizen. Besides British law says he still may be a British Subject.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

Dumb ass: a statute made everyone a United States citizen who is a United States citizen. Moreover, no federal court and no law has ever put forth the bizarre notion that an American born abroad is somehow less American (Obama's birth in the USA notwithstanding).

None of this matters. Obama is president. There is absolutely no recourse for you and your silly birther arguments. You cannot win. If shrill morons like you don't go away, he is more likely to be until 2016.

In short, dude: beat it. Your one-trick pony is dead and you need to take it somewhere else.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Fen -- There was a good discussion about those laws here the other day. I was initially for them. The poster who utterly demolished Mick convinced me otherwise, though. In a nutshell, the law asks private citizens running for president to produce a document that is totally out of their own control.

Incidentally, said demolisher is, like me, a conservative/libertarian who finds the birthers noxious and ridiculous and shrill.

"Dumb ass: a statute made everyone a United States citizen who is a United States citizen. Moreover, no federal court and no law has ever put forth the bizarre notion that an American born abroad is somehow less American (Obama's birth in the USA notwithstanding).

None of this matters. Obama is president. There is absolutely no recourse for you and your silly birther arguments. You cannot win. If shrill morons like you don't go away, he is more likely to be until 2016.

In short, dude: beat it. Your one-trick pony is dead and you need to take it somewhere else."

Spoken in the true Alinskyan way like a true Obama Internet Operative. Must be a lonely existence, licking the boots of the Usurper. Many times, in dicta of citizenship cases, the SCOTUS has affirmed the Vattel definition put forth in Minor and in WKA. No statute is needed to make a child born in America of US Citizens a US Citizen. Statute is needed to make a foreign born child a citizen (like you), thus they are not natural born. It's not about being "less American", it's about POTUS eligibility. Use some logic. The WELL KNOWN reason for the nbc requirement is to prevent foreign influence, so how can anyone born abroad be eligible? And yes we the people can throw a tyrannical government out in it's ear, just read the Declaration of Independence. Your coordinated lies are obvious Journolister.And who are you, the thread monitor? Better call some of your Obama licking buddies, you're in WAY over your head.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

SCOTUS only gave the Law of Nations (most cited SCOTUS referrence of the 19th century) meaning of nbc here, but hey it doesn't mean anything, right? It also says that the definition isn't in the 14th Amendment, since that was in 1866 and those cases were in 1874 and 1898 ("the constitution does not, in words say who is a nbc")

The 25th Amendment provides the means for Congress to remove an ineligible POTUS by using the Quo Warranto Statute of the DC District Code. His Presidency would be null and void. Anything signed by him would be NULL AND VOID (including Obamacare, and the 2 Communist SCOTUS appointments.)By the way the Arizona law (10 other states are drafting similar laws) would also force anyone to declare any foreign citizenships, not only the BC.

So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!

Of course that whole article is a lie. The legislation would also force a candidate to declare all foreign citizenships (Obama supposedly has/had 4, including the possibility he is British to this day).The law wants to vet the candidates' natural born Citizenship, not whether they were born in the US.

" So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!"

So easily the youth put on the chains of tyranny. It used to be that young Liberals didn't trust anyone over 30. Now they are in love w/ the nanny state, cared for, for the most, part by Old White Lawyers.

I would, but it was written by people who weren't Natural Born American Citizens.

I'm not going to trust a pack of dirty foreigners to tell me what's what."

You're right, they weren't natural born Citizens. The Grandfather clause of A2S1C5 allowed them to be POTUS. The founders warned against foreign influence repeatedly (see G. Washington's Farewell Address). Federalist #68, and John Jay's note to Wasington during the 1st Constitutional Congress are evidence:

July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

If the reason for the clause was to prevent foreign influence, then how could it be remotely possible that the children of foreigners, or those born abroad are eligible?

Obama's foreign father makes him ineligible no matter where birth occured, and everything he signed, including Obamacare, is Null and Void.

"In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday."

So you think that the USA is the only place with poor people - do you Florida? My view is that you should help BOTH the poor in your own country and the poor in other countries!!!!!! If you made some cuts to your defence budget you could afford it!!!!

Exactly what the Soviets said for 50 years.

Maybe if we privatized Social Security, we wouldn't need to cut defense, although foreign aid is less an anti-poverty program (and we all know how well those work) than bribes for countries to like us (and we all know how well those work).

"Others are looking at (ObamaCare) as a battle over whether to establish the precedent that the federal government can do essentially anything to us against our will and beyond its enumerated Constitutional powers in the guise of regulating 'interstate commerce' and creating 'necessary and proper" enabling legislation.'

Precisely.

It's not about ObamaCare- really. They will implement ObamaCare some other way (by taxing Soros would be my idea).

It's about how corrupt Democrats with temporary power used violence, intimidation, bribery and supplication to one-sidedly push legislation through the Congress that they knew to be unconstitutional on its very face.

Now, one of two things is going to occur:

1) They're going to get away with it.

2) They're not getting away with it.

ObamaCare is a linchpin issue. It stands as the crossroads in how America is going to function going forward. Your stance on ObamaCare defines you as a person:

1) If you are for it ... you are a facist statist and you are my childrens' enemy.

2) If you are against it ... you stand as a solid American protecting your country.

The question is this: Does the federal government have complete and total power over individuals - so much power that they can force you to give your labor to their campaign donors?

To enslave you? That is the issue. We're talking about indentured servitude here.

If Democrats win that fight then they have succeeded in destroying my country and I will react accordingly and with all due force necessary to secure for myself and my family new guards for the defense of our freedoms.

Others will join me.

Democrats crossed a line. It's that simple.

If they succeed ... American will become Egypt and people will take to the streets. Because the alternative is the destruction of America at the hands of the Democrat Party.

"Florida really is a Moby. He is advocating the exact violence over policy that the left charges that the Tea Party and the right advocates."

No, I'm not.

I honestly believe that America is a wonderful place. We enjoy protections from the sort of corruption that Barack Obama represents.

That protection is in the very court system which yesterday struck down his law ... which ruled it as a shining example of the kind of unconstitutional power Barack Obama and the Democrat Party wants to wield.

The courts ... part of the genius of our founding fathers ... are protecting us from the Democrat Party which seeks to enslave us to the betterment of their campaign donors - the insurance companies.

I am advocating that we allow that court process to take its natural course and am positive that the Supreme Court will protect Americans - that they'll do the right thing.

I'm also of the belief that if they do not ... then our country has been altered fundamentally in ways that will result in Egypt-like demonstrations against the abuse of power. Democrats won't enjoy a moment's peace even if they succeed.

ObamaCare is a corrupt abuse of power and if it is allowed to stand then the country has been damaged by them.

I'm not advocating violence ... like Francis Fox Piven I'm merely pointing out what I believe will happen should the court do the wrong thing.

Egypt is an example of what happens when one political party has complete and total power to enslave a people.